Hulett v. Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co.

• Citation: 145 Mo. 35,46 S.W. 951
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court
• Decision Date: 14 June 1898
• Parties: HULETT v. MISSOURI, K. & T. RY. CO.

46 S.W. 951

145 Mo. 35

HULETT v. MISSOURI, K. & T. RY. CO.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 2.

June 14, 1898.

DUE PROCESS OF LAW — INSTRUCTIONS — JURISDICTION OF SUPREME COURT.

1. Where one sued is given full opportunity to introduce his proofs, the constitutional provision respecting "due process of law" is fully complied with.

2. In an action to recover damages, the instruction, "To hold the defendant liable in this case would violate its rights guarantied by the constitution of the state of Missouri and of the United States," was properly refused, and was insufficient to raise a constitutional question giving the supreme court jurisdiction on appeal.

3. An action in which plaintiff sued to recover $1,500, and had judgment for $750, and in which no constitutional question is involved, is not appealable to the supreme court.

Appeal from circuit court, Cooper county; D. W. Shackleford, Judge.

Action by William Hulett against the Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Cause transferred.

Jackson & Montgomery, for appellant. Sam. C. Major and W. M. Williams, for respondent.

SHERWOOD, J.

The Missouri, Kansas & Eastern Railway Company made a cut and constructed its track on Main street in Rocheport, in front of plaintiff's lots, and afterwards laid down its track and a switch in such excavated street. Such excavation was below the surface and grade of the street a depth of from three to seven feet, thereby cutting off all access to plaintiff's lots from Main street. Afterwards the Missouri, Kansas & Eastern Railway Company placed the defendant company in full possession and control of said track, and defendant company, with full notice, etc., continued such obstructions in said street, and operated said road and switch. The defendant's answer was, in substance, a general denial. Upon trial had, the plaintiff, having sued for $1,500 damages, recovered a verdict for $750, and defendant appealed to this court.

Among the instructions asked by defendant and refused by the trial court was this one: "To hold the defendant liable in this case would violate its rights guarantied by the constitution of the state of Missouri and of the United States, and would deprive the defendant of its property and rights without due process of law." Mr. Webster, in the Dartmouth College Case, gave this definition of the law of the land: "By `the law of the land' is most clearly intended the general law; a law which hears before it condemns, which proceeds upon inquiry, and renders judgment only after trial." 4 Wheat. 519. The terms "due process of law" and "the law of the land" are interchangeable terms; they...